Marines have been played that way for 7 or 8 years.

I assumed that I didn't have to include that as background for my comment

quote="nealhunt"]
Marines have been played that way for 7 or 8 .

And the flyer rules are as old as the game and yet this is no argument to allow all vehicles to fly.

The dad is a special rule, part of the SMs general transport special rule. This neither implies that it is meant for any other kind of unit nor that this rule is tested, balanced or taken into consideration with any other kind .

If it would have been universally tested it would be common practice, but as I understood this is not the case - SMs excluded, but nobody argues about this.

No, it is not. Nothing in the SM transport rule says anything of the sort. The rule references making unit choices based on a deployment strategy. Never does it say those choices are made during deployment, or any other time except during the normal unit selection process.

Agreed.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I was thinking about this over the weekend in terms of how many points were being sacrificed for a deployment option. It seems to me the break point on whether people will consider sacrificing is about 50 points.

SM Tacticals - 3 Rhinos, ~30 points
SM Devs - 2 Rhinos, ~20 points
IG - 2 Griffons, ~50 points
Eldar "Wraith-Host" - 3 Guardians, ~45 points

I'm not sure what it means, but I found it interesting.

Ok Neal, given the amount of heat this topic has generated, we evidently need to do something; at a minimum the FAQ needs to be revised.

I really like the idea presented recently by Simulated Knave here. In summary, you may only discard upgrades that have been paid for (not core units or ‘free swaps’) and in addition, the Marines may swap Rhinos for Drop pods (as current in the UK); both decisions being taken at the start of setting up, before the game starts.

Following his suggestion the FAQ might look like this:-

6.1.5 Setup Spacecraft & Garrisons
Q. How and when are Space Marine transport options selected, and how can I garrison formations which have too many vehicles?
A. Purchasing upgrades is part of the army selection process. Formations may discard any upgrades that have been purchased to comply with Garrisoning or Transport requirements when setting up in reserve. In addition, because of their superior planning, Marines may swap Rhinos for Drop pods or discard vehicles from a formation. These decisions are taken before spacecraft or Garrisons are declared.

I think people might consider a slightly higher discard value. For example
Devastators, 2x Dreadnoughts, Hunter (425)
Options :-

• Discard Rhinos for a strong Garrison with AA (no cost)
• Discard Hunter to Drop pod (-75) - note this is currently illegal under the E-UK rules
• Discard Dreadnoughts but keep Rhinos for manoeuverable AA (-100)
• Keep Rhinos and both upgrades for a really tough but slow BTS guard with AA
  

I'd say "any upgrades (or parts of upgrades)", Ginger. But otherwise, I'm always a big fan of my ideas.

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

Must be the language barrier - I do not understand what your saying.

I say:
The dad (drop at deployment rule) is not in the rules anywhere.
The only base for use of dad - however weak -, which is proposed by you and others, is IMHO in the +transport (plus transport) section of the SM entry in the armylists. This derives from the FAQ to the online rule book - more later about that.
This being part of the +transport rule of the SM does makes it a special rule for SM units with the +transport option.

What's wrong with that ?

The move-shoot-move of Eldar skimmers being in the Eldar skimmer section makes it an special rule for Eldar skimmers and neither for all skimmers, nor for all Eldar vehicles.

Let's step back and look at the EA rule book - ignoring army lists.

Nothing says that you can set up more or less units than bought, when you setup your formation.
If you want a Hunter with your Whirlwinds - you "buy" it at army selection time and when you don't want one, you do not buy it.
But you do neither "not buy it, but deploy it" nor "buy it, but don't deploy it".
It doesn't say this in words, but it is implied by never mentioning the option to set up more or less units than you bought. This seems to be obvious to everybody about setting up more units than bought. I do not see any indication why it should be different for deploying less units than bought.

Now for the SM army lists it adds the following rule:


Hey that's just what I proposed some posts ago. You take the Rhinos or not or replace them with drop pods.
This option is only for formations which have the +transport option.
And please note - the talk is only about Rhinos left behind, not Marines, Hunters or whatever.
Wishful thinking may make you interpret the "field" as choosing at deployment time - I don't see it that way. I choose to field a unit of Whirlwinds, that doesn't say I do so at deployment time, but at army selection time.
So the original rulebook gives no hint of dad.

Now the online rulebook.

No change - no difference - no dad.

Now the FAQ to the online rule book and now it starts to get ugly.
I assume that some tournament player(s) was(were) whining about choosing to have a garrison force at army selection time (I'm a tournament player and I play SM - I can understand that feeling - I hopefully wouldn't give in to my desire, but that's something different).
And by whatever procedures it found its way into the FAQ and this entry was created:


Suddenly it's no't only Rhinos to be left behind, but portions of the formation.
The FAQ author was probably only lax in his wording, while trying to include drop-pod-dropping besides the Rhino-dropping.
But even there is no reason to think this would be a general rule for each and every formation not even SM formations without the +transport rule.


If you feel it necessary to have such a rule - have it, just don't pretend it was intended by Jervis or that it had been there al the time.

By the way if the quote Ulrik remembers is the base for supposing "Jervis' intent" - than I don't see the relevance. I just do not see the connection between
"Hey I only have 7 buggies, instead of eight - For crying out loud than play with 7" and
"I drop two guardians of an upgraded formation to squeeze Wraithguards into a flayer, so I can cause confusion behind your lines and draw fire away from other units, because if you do not shoot at them, the Wraitghguard will rally and deny me the no unit in my half bonus or will threaten my Blitz, while an ordinary unit would have been already destroyed because of worse save or being destroyed by wounds created by Blast Markers while being broken.

Regards
SH

Hi Brumbaer, you may be correct about the language question, but have also missed several key points.

I understand your point that the 'DAD' is not in the 'core rules'; it is not supposed to be! Setup and deployment is part of the "tournament scenario" in chapter #6, which is not part of the 'core' rules as such. However, chapter #6 does contain additional 'special rules' to be used as part of the various scenarios including the tournament scenario; and "Garrisoning" and "Marine transport " are two such special rules. These 'special rules' have more flexibility because they are intended to control the way the scenario plays, not how E:A itself plays, and potentially there is no reason why we should not adopt or adapt these or other special rules for the scenarios.

I do think that the FAQ is open to interpretation in its current form because Neal evidently intended something that others had not understood (yourself included). So at the very least we need to revise the FAQ; would you prefer there to be two answers to the different questions relating to Marine Transport (how and when chosen / swapped), and discarding units (if allowed and what restrictions apply)?

Hello Ginger,
Thanks for the reply,
I put everything that is not strictly armylist under "rules", because it is now in the handbook (read rule book) and the army lists are in the compendium (read army book).
So when I say there is nothing in the rule book that hints on DAD it includes the deployment and tournament rules.
I don't think I miss a key principle - I only seem not to agree on the validity of the key arguments.
The only possible reference to the possibility of dropping units at deployment is an interpretation of the poor wording in the FAQ.
If this suddenly extends the very restrictive original rule to an universal DAD rule, it should not be part of the FAQ, because this is not an interpretaion of an SM special rule to drop Rhinos (at army selection)that it originally is, but a new rule.

The argument for DAD is just an interpretation of a FAQ answer, but this interpretation is only possible because the FAQ answer was not an interpretaion, but a new rule in the first place.
It's like saying a wrong answer is correct, just because somebody else claimed it to be correct before.

I would prefer to keep the original rule, which is IMHO the savest and most balanced.
All choices made at army selection time - if a SM player wants to garrison, he has to select no transport for the unit - and valid only for units with +transport option.
And it would be a great improvement to get rid of this FAQ entry regardless of the final decision.

But as I seem to be the only one who cares for the original rules (core, tournament and army rules) and
"No foundation" vs. " there is an FAQ answer which allows to do everything and more"
Runs in circles.
I just drop out of the discussion, before it get's to tiresome for everybody.

Regards
Stephan

PS
Now I really missed a key point.
You said szenario rules should have more lee way. I agree whole heartedly.
But than put DAD in to some special szenario and not into the general tournament rules -because most organisers will adopt theses and what's in the tournament rules is de facto in the core rules.

Just didn't want to do an edit, so this was tt - promise

I'm totally with brumbaer, just dropped out for a while as it felt like beating a dead horse and coming up against circular arguments and straw men.

I think BB and I are both contending that the rules don't allow Eldar (or any army other than marines) to drop units. There simply isn't a rule anywhere that allows it. You can say "not in the core rules, but there are separate rules for the GT!" if you like, but we're talking about sections 1-6 in their entirety, so core rules, specialists, tournament scenario, army lists... As BB says, just like there is no place in the rulebook that says Eldar get to field more units than is in their list, there is no place in the rulebook that says they get to field fewer units than they picked. The rules tell you which units are in formations, and they tell you which formations can garrison. It's really quite simple and clear when you stop assuming that DAD *should* be a rule. The only place in the rulebook that says anything like this is the Marine special rule, which is very clearly about Marines, and only certain marine units (i.e. rhinos).

Next, there is an FAQ for this marine special rule that tries to clarify when the choice to drop units is made. For whatever reason the FAQ is at best badly worded and ambiguous, and at worst contradicts the rules (i.e. it says something that is not supported by the rules). It's important to see the distinction between rules and FAQs - an FAQ can only clarify existing rules, it cannot introduce new ones. The only way to introduce new rules was by changing the rulebook, for which a perfectly standard mechanism of errata existed (this is how the cover save for transports was introduced). Given that this didn't happen, there is no reason to extrapolate the ambiguity of that single FAQ to such a wide context that some are proposing now. Ultimately, FAQs have to be consistent with the rules, and if an FAQ is not consistent with the rules then it is wrong and one of two things should happen:
1) Add a major erratum for the relevant parts of the rules (which means a new version of the rulebook).
2) Correct the FAQ so that it reflects the rules correctly. In this case, the only way for the FAQ to be consistent with the 2008 rulebook+errata is for it to clarify that only marines can drop units, and only their free transport. It can clarify when marines can make the choice, but it can't expand the scope to, for example, Eldar.

It seems some are convinced it *should* be a rule, and want the FAQ to be reinforced to make it so. I don't think that is a logical thing to do because:
a) it doesn't make sense; it doesn't help clarify anything because it's still inconsistent with the rules
b) it isn't desirable; the benefit is tiny compared to the hassle
c) there is no agreement on which units should even be allowed to do it

Personally I think the only logical thing to do is option 2), with a possible mention that players can devise a house rule if they want to allow some other combination of units/armies to have the same flexibility as marines following list construction.

Edit: typo

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

The two guys above (BB and Kyrt) have said it better than I ever could but for what it's worth I'd like to say that I entirely agree with the points they've made and Kyrt's suggestion.

I know this isn't much but I figured there was little point repeating the same arguments and less point in agreeing but remaining silent.

_________________
You see a mousetrap, I see free cheese and a f*cking challenge